From: Usenet News Support (support@deathstar.prodigy.com)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 12:45:16 CDT
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <20040531184532.GD3152@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>
> >* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-05-31 11:39:17 +0000]:
>
> >> In <20040529003448.GB836@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
> >> >Ok, I agree, the term "recognize" is wrong. But I still don't see the
> >> >damage in _guessing_ if the start of the subject is (or rather: was) a
>
> >> Would s/recognize/detect/ help?
>
> >No, the point is that it is not possible to tell if the subject of an
> >article contains a back-reference or not (depending on the definition of
> >a back-reference of course), or if "Re: " is written by the user, having a
> >completely different meaning than a back-reference. The newsreader
> >can only _guess_.
>
> Ah! In that case they have found an "apparent" back-reference. How about
> the following:
>
> It would be wiser for any followup agents which detect apparent non-
^^^^^^^^
possible
> standard back-references such as "Re(2): ", "Sv: ", etc. to refrain
> from prepending anything further, but other attempts to mend that
> problem are likely to do more harm than good.
>
>
-- bill davidsen SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center Project Leader, USENET news http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com Please send usenet-related mail to news-support@prodigy.net